Selvi v. The Principal Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Selvi .. Petitioner vs.

1.Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner of Police Office, Tiruchirappalli City.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in C.No. 170/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 26.11.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son,

namely, Aravind, S/o.Sappani, male, aged 28/2023, now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Aravind, S/o.Sappani, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by order in C.No.170/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 26.11.2022 holding him to be a 'Goonda', as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.291, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 13.10.2022 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on that sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this petition by filing counter.

5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page Nos.75 and 76 of the booklet, it is clear that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.291, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 13.10.2022 has not been translated in vernacular language. Hence, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.170/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 26.11.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aravind, S/o.Sappani, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R., J.) (M.N.K., J.) 21.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mbi

To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner of Police Office, Tiruchirappalli City.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruchirappalli.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

mbi 21.07.2023